State ex rel. Russell v. Williams

Supreme Court of Kansas

State ex rel. Russell v. Williams

150 P. 227, 96 Kan. 82, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 315

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 10, 1915

DocketNo. 18,691

StatusPublished

This text of 150 P. 227 (State ex rel. Russell v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Russell v. Williams, 150 P. 227, 96 Kan. 82, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 315 (kan 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON REHEARING.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

In the decision affirming the judgment in this case (The State, ex rel., v. Williams, 92 Kan. 527, 150 Pac. 225) it was held that no error was committed in the admission of certain testimony, which was objected to under the rule excluding evidence of offers of compromise. A rehearing was granted with respect to that question. Upon full consideration of the further argument the original decision is adhered to, for the additional reason that even if the testimony were incom[83]*83petent, the likelihood of its having affected the verdict is só remote that the judgment ought not to be reversed on that account.

Dawson, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION ON REHEARING.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

In the decision affirming the judgment in this case (The State, ex rel., v. Williams, 92 Kan. 527, 150 Pac. 225) it was held that no error was committed in the admission of certain testimony, which was objected to under the rule excluding evidence of offers of compromise. A rehearing was granted with respect to that question. Upon full consideration of the further argument the original decision is adhered to, for the additional reason that even if the testimony were incom[83]*83petent, the likelihood of its having affected the verdict is só remote that the judgment ought not to be reversed on that account.

Dawson, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 P. 227, 96 Kan. 82, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-russell-v-williams-kan-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack